DOCSLIB.ORG

7Th Edition (2018)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
7Th Edition (2018) Issue 7 2018 The views expressed by the contributors are not necessarily those of the Editorial or Honorary Board of the Oxford University Undergraduate Law Journal. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this journal is correct, the Editors and the authors cannot accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions, or for any consequences resulting therefrom. © 2018 Individual authors OXFORD UNIVERSITY 2 UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL -The- 7th Editorial Board of the Oxford University Undergraduate Law Journal 2017-2018 Editors-in-Chief Jean Goh Govind Shankar St Peter’s College St John’s College Editors Anna Yamaoka-Enkerlin Kenneth Chong Pembroke College Magdalen College Secretary Daisy Brown St Peter’s College Senior Associate Editors Sam Cadd Tom Pausey Hertford College St Catherine’s College Associate Editors Ming Mak Amelia Tai Worcester College Oriel College Oskar Sherry Jonathan Windsor Lady Margaret Hall College Balliol College Abigail Preston Joseph Bunting Mansfield College Magdalen College Tim Koch Jesus College OXFORD UNIVERSITY 3 UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL -The- Honorary Board Sir Nicolas Bratza Professor Michael Bridge Donald Findlay QC Professor Christopher Forsyth Ian Gatt QC The Right Hon the Lord Judge The Right Hon the Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore Michael Mansfield QC The Right Hon the Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury The Right Hon the Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Lord Pannick QC His Honour Judge Gordon Risius CB Dinah Rose QC Sir Konrad Schiemann The Right Hon the Lord Wilson of Culworth OXFORD UNIVERSITY 4 UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL CONTENTS I. Foreword Dr Paul Yowell, Fellow of Oriel College and Associate Professor in the 6 Oxford Faculty of Law II. Introduction 8 Jean Goh and Govind Shankar, Editors-in-Chief III. Serious Harm to Corporate Reputation - More Than Just the 10 Money Cara Gao IV. “Possession is nine tenths of the (Common) law”: A comparison of Civil law ‘ownership’ and the rights in English property law, both 39 at Law and in Equity Matthew Hoyle V. Responsible, but not Criminal: A response to States’ normative justifications for a Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility 60 (MACR) below the age of 12 Oskar Sherry VI. Undue Influence: The Case for a Presumption of Influence between Couples 81 Godwin Tan OXFORD UNIVERSITY 5 UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL FOREWORD Dr Paul Yowell, Fellow of Oriel College and Associate Professor in the Oxford Faculty of Law Writing for a student law journal benefits both the student who authors an article and the public that forms the potential audience. Students gain the opportunity to explore questions that interest them in a format that goes well beyond the confines of coursework essays. Presenting an argument for public scrutiny incentivises authors to think deeply and thoroughly about issues of policy and to do so in dialogue with a range of academic voices. The student who submits to this discipline becomes a better scholar in the process. The articles in this edition of the Oxford Undergraduate Law Journal are excellent examples of this approach, and of thorough engagement with the policy questions that underlie current legal controversies. Above and beyond the benefit the student authors have gained in this process, the four articles serve the legal profession in offering illuminating and fresh perspectives. Cara Gao engages with modern scholarship on the societal role and ethical responsibility of corporations to argue that libel law should shift its focus from monetary damage to more intangible forms of reputational damage; and she creatively explores a framework of discursive remedies as a means for undoing that damage. Matthew Hoyle uncovers an idea that lawyers and legal theorists often overlook: that the English law of property is not grounded in a notion of absolute ownership (as in some civil law systems) but rather in relative superiority of title; and is vindicated in contexts that often start from the fact of current possession. He explores the policy and practical implications of this and offers sensible advice for thinking, among other things, about ‘ownership’ in the context of trusts. Oskar Sherry compellingly argues that children under the age of twelve do not have the developmental capacities needed to be judged for criminal responsibility, distinguishing this from responsibility more generally, and carefully analysing neuroscientific literature on brain development as well as the moral philosophy at stake in questions about internalisation of norms and submission to external authority. Godwin Tan explores in helpful detail the doctrine of undue influence in contracting, particularly with regard OXFORD UNIVERSITY 6 UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL to spousal and other close personal relationships, and thoughtfully reflects on advantages and disadvantages of possible solutions for reform of the law. The authors evince competence in a range of methodologies, accenting different approaches: policy and institutional analysis (Gao); historical and comparative study (Hoyle); moral theory juxtaposed with scientific literature (Sherry); and rigorous doctrinal and case analysis (Tan). Collectively the articles reflect the training that Oxford law students receive and the high standards to which they are held. A reader who takes in the whole edition will come away with an overview of a range of current issues and a gratifying sense of having engaged with new arguments and perspectives. Other readers interested in particular topics will be well served by the thoughtful treatment in each of the articles. The authors and editors of this edition deserve congratulations for a valuable contribution to legal scholarship. OXFORD UNIVERSITY 7 UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL INTRODUCTION Jean Goh and Govind Shankar, Editors-in-Chief It brings us great pleasure to introduce the 7th Edition of the Oxford University Undergraduate Law Journal (‘OUULJ’). This volume features a carefully selected range of articles dealing with complex and fascinating issues. As the first student-run law journal in the United Kingdom, this edition continues our tradition of providing a platform for undergraduate students from Oxford and around the UK to further engage with the study of law. Indeed, in many ways, the OUULJ is a reminder of the depth and richness of the study of law, even at an undergraduate level. While the focus is on areas within the scope of the Oxford BA in Jurisprudence course, the depth of analysis by our contributors and the issues they explore illustrate that our subject goes far beyond neatly bound textbooks and classes. Naturally, this was no easy task. The OUULJ would not be possible without the dedication and efforts of our Editors, Kenneth and Anna, and their team of Associate Editors. Recognition must also go to our contributors who have put painstaking efforts into their work and chosen to place their faith in us. We would also like to give our thanks to the Law Faculty for their support. This Edition begins with Cara Gao’s fascinating piece which considers the value of a corporate reputation in the context of defamation. Following that is Matthew Hoyle’s submission which sheds light on the ideas of proprietary and equitable rights by contrasting the English common law position with civil law jurisdictions such as Germany and France. Next is Oskar Sherry’s intricate piece which juxtaposes the two oft equated concepts of criminality and responsibility with reference to children. And finally, this volume is capped off by Godwin Tan’s perceptive article on undue influence which considers and argues against the exclusion of couples from the traditional categories of presumed influence. OXFORD UNIVERSITY 8 UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL It is our fervent hope that the OUULJ will continue in its mission to promote legal thought and exploration in the coming years. If you are a student reading this, it is our heartfelt wish that our Journal will inspire you to think outside of your curriculum, to explore the vast reaches of our shared subject and perhaps even to contribute to our next edition. If you are reading this as a legal practitioner, we hope that you have found it useful and illuminating in your course of work. Above all, we hope that our edition will be an entertaining and thought- provoking read. OXFORD UNIVERSITY 9 UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL Serious Harm to Corporate Reputation - More Than Just the Money Cara Gao1 Introduction At common law, corporations could traditionally sue in defamation without proof of special damage, just like human claimants.2 As confirmed by Theedom v Nourish Training Ltd,3 this is no longer the case. The Defamation Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”) altered this position by instituting a new statutory restriction in s.1(1) that “[a] statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.” Further, s.1(2) states that for a “body that trades for profit”, harm to reputation is not “serious harm” unless “it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss”. This departs from the common law position in Jameel4 and Thornton5 that natural or non-natural persons should not be subject to different rules for bringing a defamation claim. While the statutory intention was to “raise the bar for bringing a defamation claim”,6 the previous common law position has largely prevailed for individual claimants following the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Lachaux v Independent Press Limited.7 Reversing the initial judicial interpretation of s.1(1) that claimants must prove actual or likely serious harm on the balance of probabilities,8 Lachaux clarified that claimants are only required to show that the publication had a “tendency” to cause serious harm to reputation in s.1(1). However, the judgment specifically did not address the position of bodies trading for profit under s.1(2).9 This essay will focus on the 1 I am very grateful to Professor Maria Lee, T.G.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Part 39 Civil Procedure Rules: Proposed Changes, Open Justice
    Part 39 Civil Procedure Rules: proposed changes Open justice This consultation begins on 12/07/18 This consultation ends on 23/08/18 Part 39 Civil Procedure Rules: proposed changes Open justice A consultation produced by the Ministry of Justice. It is also available at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/ About this consultation To: The consultation is aimed at court users in England and Wales. Duration: From 12/07/18 to 23/08/18 Enquiries (including requests Civil Justice and Law Policy for the paper in an alternative Ministry of Justice format) to: 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 3555 Email: [email protected] How to respond: Please send your response by 23/08/18 to: Civil Justice and Law Policy Ministry of Justice 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 3555 Email: [email protected] Additional ways to feed in your N/A views: Response paper: A response to this consultation exercise is due to be published within three months of the consultation closing at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/ Part 39 CPR: Open Justice Consultation Paper Contents Foreword 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction 8 The proposals 9 Impact assessments 14 About you 15 Contact details/How to respond 16 Consultation principles 19 1 Part 39 CPR: Open Justice Consultation Paper 2 Part 39 CPR: Open Justice Consultation Paper Foreword The justice system in England and Wales is internationally recognised as one of the finest in the world; our strong and independent judiciary, world-class legal profession and our legal system are the basis of a modern society and strong economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Jamaica Civil Procedure Rules 2002
    SUPREME COURT OF JAMAICA CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2002 i CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES - 20002 ii SUPREME COURT OF JAMAICA CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2002 REVISED, AS AT SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 Published on behalf of the Government of Jamaica by The Caribbean Law Publishing Company Limited Kingston, Jamaica iii CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES - 20002 First published in Jamaica 2002 by The Caribbean Law Publishing Company 11 Cunningham Avenue PO Box 686 Kingston 6 Revised 2006 © The Government of Jamaica All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the Government of Jamaica. ISBN 976-8167-47-5 A catalogue of record of this book is available from the National Library of Jamaica Typeset by Shelly-Gail Folkes Set in Stone Informal 10pt Printed in the United States of America iv The Judicature (Rules of Court) Act [The Civil Procedure Rules 2002] In exercise of the powers conferred upon the Rules Committee of the Supreme Court by Section 4 of the Judicature (Rules of Court) Act, the following Rules are hereby made: CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES, 2002 1. These Rules may be cited as the Civil Procedure Rules, 2002, and shall come into operation, subject to the transitional provisions contained in part 73, on January 1, 2003. 2. All Rules of Court relating to the procedure in civil proceedings in the Supreme Court, save for those relating to insolvency (including winding up of Companies and bankruptcy), and matrimonial proceedings are hereby revoked.
    [Show full text]
  • The Student's Guide to the Leading Law Firms and Sets in the UK
    2021 The student’s guide to the leading law firms and sets in the UK e-Edition chambers-student.com Connect with us on cbaK Travers Smith’s mix of formal and informal training is second to none. It enables those coming fresh from law school to quickly become familiar with complex concepts and provides them with the necessary tools to throw themselves into their team’s work right from the start. www.traverssmith.com 10 Snow Hill, London EC1A 2AL +44 (0) 20 7295 3000 Contents Law school The Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) p.37 An introduction to the SQE with ULaw p.41 Solicitors’ timetable p.43 Barristers’ timetable p.44 The Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) p.45 The Legal Practice Course (LPC) p.49 The Bar Course p.52 How to fund law school p.55 Law school course providers p.57 Contents https://www.chambersstudent.co.uk The Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) The Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) From 2021 there’s going to be an entirely new way of qualifying as a solicitor replacing the GDL, LPC and training contract. If you’re thinking ‘SQE OMG!’ – don’t fear: here’s a quick guide. What’s going on? volve a practical testing ‘pilot’ with students. The regula- In winter 2016/17 the Solicitors Regulation Authority tor has stated that it expects various other providers (i.e. (SRA) dropped a bombshell on the legal profession: it was probably law schools and the current GDL/LPC providers) going ahead with its plan for the Solicitors Qualifying Ex- to offer preparatory courses for both stages of the SQE.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions on Complaints And
    Frequently Asked Questions on (iii) All relevant documents/correspondence 9. How does the ASDB deal with a complaint? Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings Against relevant to the subject-matter of the (a) The ASDB will deliberate on a complaint to ascertain Advocates and Solicitors complaint; and whether there is merit on the issues as alleged; (iv) Chronological narration of all record of (b) Should there be merit in the complaint, the ASDB 1. What type of conduct can a complaint be based on? meetings and phone calls, record of documents may proceed to embark on the following: A complaint may be based on the professional misconduct or and/or correspondence to and/or from third (i) Direct that a DC be constituted to conduct a unsatisfactory professional conduct of a solicitor. party witnesses, and list of potential witnesses formal inquiry; or where applicable. (ii) Issue a Notice to the solicitor to appear to 2. What is professional misconduct? tender an explanation before the Board; and 5. What is the ASDB? Professional misconduct covers a broad range of acts and (c) Should there be no merit in the complaint, the ASDB The ASDB is a statutory body established under section 99(3) circumstances. Examples (the list is not exhaustive) may include: will dismiss the complaint without a formal hearing. (a) Dishonesty/Fraud; of the LPA. It is a body entrusted with powers to conduct (b) Contravening the Legal Profession Act (“LPA”) 1976 disciplinary proceedings against advocates and solicitors and to mete out appropriate punishments. 10. What is the composition of the DC? and any Rules or Rulings made there under; Three members; two of whom shall be legally qualified and one (c) Being found guilty or convicted of a serious offence; 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Standards for Solicitor Advocates – Performance Indicators
    Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 section 25A (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/46) Rights of Audience in the Court of Session, the High Court of Justiciary, the Supreme Court and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Statutory requirements: 1) Completion to the satisfaction of the Council of a course of training in evidence and pleading in relation to proceedings in the Courts to which rights of audience are sought 2) Has such knowledge as appears to the Council to be appropriate of (1) the practice and procedure of and (2) professional conduct in regard to those Courts 3) That the Council is satisfied that the applicant is, having regard among other things to the applicant’s experience in appropriate proceedings in the sheriff court, otherwise a fit and proper person to have a right of audience in those Courts Rules C4:1 Rights of Audience in the Civil Courts (http://www.lawscot.org.uk/rules- and-guidance/section-c-specialities/rule-c4-solicitor-advocates/rules/c41-rights-of- audience-in-the-civil-courts/), C4:2 Rights of Audience in the Criminal Courts (http://www.lawscot.org.uk/rules-and-guidance/section-c-specialities/rule-c4-solicitor- advocates/rules/c42-rights-of-audience-in-the-criminal-courts/), C4:3 Order of Precedence, Instructions (http://www.lawscot.org.uk/rules-and-guidance/section-c- specialities/rule-c4-solicitor-advocates/rules/c43-order-of-precedence,-instructions- and-representation/), and Representation and C4:4 Conduct of Solicitor Advocates (http://www.lawscot.org.uk/rules-and-guidance/section-c-specialities/rule-c4-solicitor- advocates/rules/c44-conduct-of-solicitor-advocates/) apply.
    [Show full text]
  • LAW BRIEFING: Barrister - the Basics
    The Careers Service. LAW BRIEFING: Barrister - the basics * Also includes information on Solicitor Advocate* 1) Academic Stage You must have a qualifying UK law degree, ie, an undergraduate law or law/dual degree – check using: www.sra.org.uk/students/academic-stage.page. If your first degree is non-law, you will need to complete a conversion course (GDL/PGDipLaw/CPE) - check providers and fees at: www.lawcabs.ac.uk. For further information about conversion courses see ‘Law Briefing: Getting into Law as a non-law student’. During you studies, find vacation mini-pupillages in chambers. This type of job shadowing/work experience usually lasts no more than a week and is essential to help you understand the work of a barrister and assess if it really is the job for you. Some chambers require applicants to undertake a mini-pupillage at their chambers if they wish to be considered for full pupillage later on. For more help with work experience, see ‘Law Briefing: Work experience’. NB: Most chambers prefer second year applicants. Use your first year to get other forms of work experience, such as court visits. Consider work experience in solicitors firms (made via speculative applications) to reassure yourself that being a barrister is the right choice. Getting non-law experience like a student job, volunteering or involvement in sports, clubs and societies is a great way to develop a range of skills you would need to be a barrister – see ‘Law Briefing: Skills for Lawyers’ and ‘Law Briefing: Commercial Awareness’. Read the legal pages of the newspapers regularly.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation and the Internet: Scoping Study
    Law Commission DEFAMATION AND THE INTERNET A Preliminary Investigation Scoping Study No 2 December 2002 The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 to promote the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale, QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington, CBE Judge Alan Wilkie, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The paper was completed on 8 November 2002. This preliminary investigation is the second of two scoping studies, carried out in response to a request from the Lord Chancellor dated 31 January 2002.1 Comments may be sent to: David Willink Civil Law Development Division Lord Chancellor’s Department Southside 105 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QT email: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments could be sent by email or email attachment, in any commonly used format. © Crown copyright 2002 1 The first study, Aspects of Defamation Procedure, was published in May 2002, and is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk. THE LAW COMMISSION DEFAMATION AND THE INTERNET: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 The issues 1.4 1 ISP liability for other people’s material 1.5 1 The limitation period and online archives 1.6 2 Jurisdiction issues 1.8 2 Contempt of court 1.10 2 Summary of conclusions 1.11 2 Liability of internet service providers 1.12 2 Archives and
    [Show full text]
  • How to Use a Solicitor in England and Wales
    How to use a solicitor in England and Wales Easy Read Do you need a solicitor? Solicitors give advice about the law. They are experts and can help you understand your rights and solve different legal problems you may have. There are many areas of law and different legal problems. For example, if you need help with a lease if you want to complain about a service or if you feel you lost your job unfairly. 2 If you need a solicitor you should choose one who knows the law about the problem you have and can help you. This guidance will tell you about what to expect when you use a solicitor. It also tells you how you can get the best and most suitable help for you. Finding a solicitor You can find a solicitor in different ways. Local advice agencies such as a law centre or Citizens Advice Bureau can recommend solicitors. You might like to talk to friends, family or local groups about their experiences. 3 You can also find solicitors through the Law Society at: www.lawsociety.org.uk/ FindASolicitor If you are arrested and kept in custody at a police station you can get free legal advice. If you are charged with a criminal offence and you need to go to court, you may be able to get free legal advice. Meeting your solicitor When you have chosen a solicitor you will need to make an appointment. If you need to see a solicitor urgently the solicitor should try and see you as quickly as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation and Social Media
    Features Defamation and social media Encouraging the public to interact with your organisation through online message boards is increasingly popular, but there are pitfalls in allowing comments to be posted online. Mark Scodie provides guidance to prove that you have taken ‘reasonable care’ as to for organisations on avoiding legal what is published on your page if it bears a set of house rules setting out which kind of contributions liability for defamatory postings are welcome and which are not – making it clear Mark Scodie that abusive, racist, defamatory and/or intimidating Solicitor Many membership organisations and regulatory content will not be tolerated. T: 020 7551 7672 bodies now use social media to raise their profile and [email protected] communicate with stakeholders. However, operating a Secondly, a careful judgement then needs to be made page or message board over which you maintain some about how those rules are to be enforced. Broadly, Mark has wide-ranging editorial control could make you jointly liable for any dispute resolution there are three options: experience servicing defamatory material published on your space by other 1. Pre-moderate every comment before it appears on a number of sectors, social media users. So how do you engage with social the page. (Social media sites vary as to whether coupled with a specialist media whilst guarding against such legal liability? interest in all forms of page operators may do this.) The advantage in media-related disputes. The law of England and Wales provides that anyone doing so is – hopefully – to ensure that no material contributing to the publication of a defamatory is ever published that breaches your own house statement bears joint responsibility for it – journalists, rules or gives rise to any legal complaints.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Trans-National Libel, 60 Am
    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2012 The rP oblem of Trans-National Libel Lili Levi University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Lili Levi, The Problem of Trans-National Libel, 60 Am. J. Comp. L. 507 (2012). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LILI LEVI* The Problem of Trans-National Libelt Forum shopping in trans-nationallibel cases-"libel tourism"- has a chilling effect on journalism, academic scholarship,and scien- tific criticism. The United States and Britain (the most popular venue for such cases) have recently attempted to address the issue legisla- tively. In 2010, the United States passed the SPEECH Act, which prohibits recognition and enforcement of libel judgments from juris- dictions applying law less speech-protective than the First Amendment. In Britain, consultation has closed and the Parliamen- tary Joint Committee has issued its report on a broad-ranginglibel reform bill proposed by the Government in March 2011. This Article questions the extent to which the SPEECH Act and the Draft Defama- tion Bill will accomplish their stated aims.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Civil Procedure Rules First Report
    The New Civil Procedure Rules First Report May 2017 Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 Background to the rules rewrite project.............................................................................. 3 The Acts ........................................................................................................................ 3 The Rules Rewrite Working Group ................................................................................. 4 The Rules Rewrite Drafting Team and implementation of the 2014 Act .......................... 5 The Rules Rewrite Project ................................................................................................. 6 The scope of the project ................................................................................................. 6 Matters out with the scope of the project ........................................................................ 8 Purpose of this report ........................................................................................................ 9 Discussion papers .......................................................................................................... 9 Engagement with the public and the professions ......................................................... 10 Chapter 2. A statement of principle .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Solicitor Not on the Record
    Solicitor not on the record Purpose: To provide assistance to barristers who find out that their solicitor is not on the court record Scope of application: All practising barristers Issued by: The Ethics Committee Issued: April 2019 Last reviewed: May 2020 Status and effect: Please see the notice at end of this document. This is not “guidance” for the purposes of the BSB Handbook I6.4. Issue: a barrister is instructed by an instructing solicitor to represent a lay client at a hearing. The barrister is told or finds out that the solicitor is not on the court record. What should the barrister do? Answer: nothing. 1. A barrister can provide reserved legal activities (including advocacy at court) if s/he is instructed by a professional client, a licensed access client or a public access client. There is nothing in the BSB Handbook or the Legal Services Act which requires that the person instructing the barrister to attend court must have conduct of the litigation. 2. Indeed, it is axiomatic that when a barrister is instructed by a licensed access client, the licence holder will not have conduct of the litigation. The same applies in a public access case when the barrister is instructed by an intermediary. 3. The Law Society recognises that solicitors may act for a client on a limited retainer. This is called ‘unbundling’. It is usually so that the client can save money. The Law Society guidance1 says: ‘The essence of unbundling in its purest form is that 1 At the time of review in May 2020, the Law Society guidance was awaiting updating to reflect the replacement of the SRA Handbook (version 21) by the SRA Standards and Regulations on, and with effect, from 25th November 2019.
    [Show full text]